tv [untitled] July 25, 2011 5:30am-6:00am PDT
-- that is posted for each cell phone display. the materials need to be handed out and a poster needs to be put up in the store. with this there is escalating penalties. if the retailer for gets to market label, for guests to hand out a pamphlet, it might have them available for every that comes in the store. any consumer can request a pamphlet. that opens it to penalties. this will be unduly burdensome to the mom and pop cellphone retailers. with more independent cellphone retailers then the carrier-own stores, this will disproportionate impact those mom-and-pop stores. this will also place retailers
in the untenable position of having to answer questions about radio frequency emissions and that they are not appropriately trained to answer. i've been in the industry for five years and there are certain issues with this that i still don't fully grasp. imagine the retailers that might have just one employee who was a teenage student being put in the position of answering those highly scientific questions. if there is a place for regulation, this is best that the federal level. the consumers, retailers, and wireless carriers can receive guidance from the expert federal agencies that studied this issue. as the previous speaker noted, there was a classification that came out in may and they are updated of june, 2011.
some parties recommend that you take practices to reduce rf exposure. >> are there any public speakers on this item? public comment is closed. >> i would like to ask the representative a clarifying question. the previous speaker stated that they would have to have information on each individual cell phone display or just one and it was my understanding that it was posted at the cellphone
display, there is a wall of self phones and the need to be a poster on that wall. the information sheet will be developed by the department which should be available to the retailer, downloadable, may be a nice small size. >> the poster itself -- >> the information sheet hamas -- the information poster she can be -- this can be smaller than a page or something. thank you for answering my question. you have to give them a piece of paper, they are not expected to inform the public about things. thank you.
>> who will pay for the poster and you will pay for the little pieces of paper that you give out? >> the department would pay for the first round of posters. >> i don't have anymore questions. i just want everyone to know that i am prepared to support this. i think the department did a lot of work. i did not see it more onerous than the warning labels that were required to put -- alcoholic beverages if you're pregnant can harm her fetus. i have to say that, i'm not expected to go convene with someone who is pregnant but we know there is a risk.
well, it has been said there is a risk with there is some disagreement about that and there are people who will argue that drinking while they are pregnant is not heard your fetus. i would like to share a personal story. i know two people under the age of 50 with inoperable brain cancer and we don't know where it came from. there is an increase in certain things happening and if the world health organization is talking about it, i think it is better to be cautious and disseminate information. i am for more information, not less. i don't see that this is onerous or board in some. i agree with many members of the public who spoke about this, particularly since we have some the children who use cell phones and they're using them at younger ages. there are ages and there are
studies. i don't really want to argue. we have a chance to inform at the point of sale which is a positive step. for an industry that is a very well capitalized industry, i don't see that it will put anyone at a disadvantage. the people take informational things, they read everything like prescription drugs. i just finished by telling the industry that you might be actually doing yourself a favor. maybe to air on the side of caution and inform people of the ways to take care now would be a
good thing. >> i am a little concerned about the finds some of the first time, this is $100, to 50, 500. how will you check up on the retailers? >> we will be dealing inspections on the retailer's. there is a small amount of stores. these will go to the stores individually. there are well over 5000 restaurants. >> would it be the same people? >> yes. this would be department of the environment. what happens if the poster was damaged or lost?
>> it to be replaced easily. >> i don't think there would be much between time. we could send one write out. >> i read some of these letters. they felt the additional burden for the retailer and this would define the penalty. >> they would not have to pay the fine if they complied with the ordinance. we see with this ordinance, we very half to -- with very seldom have to issue the fines. we would have to do fines after several visits. >> >> i respect what you have to
say. i cannot vote for this. i do not think it is the position of the city and county of san francisco to regulate this. you talked about the drugs and smoking, that is done at a federal level. this kind of legislation is not just for san francisco, this should be national. let's make it easy. i have talked to several small retailers and frankly, here is san francisco again. i respect everything you say. the verdict is still out on what the phones do and what they don't do. there has been no conclusive evidence out there from anyone, including the world health organization, and i do not feel to be in the place of the city and county of san francisco. this would be one of the first
in the nation. this is what we let congress and our senators for to come to washington, this should not be done on a local level, that is what i cannot support this. >> i would like to respond. i don't believe we're regulating the phones. there is no regulation whatsoever. i don't think it falls in the same per view but i do respect your point of view. thank you. >> is it the department of the varmint that also fits or is this from supervisor avalos or his office? >> this was supported by supervisor avalos. >> my concern is that i don't want to repeat the point, but i think that this is a little bit onerous that they have to issue
a flyer with each and every sale of the cell phone to a customer who was coming in. it is -- the other substances are products we get. we put the onus on the manufacturer. as an example, smoking. it is put on the box. i would rather see this being pushed back on the manufacturers to have to do labeling. however, i am also sensitive to the fact that we do have an uncertainty here that could be a health hazard that may prove to be much more drastic than we are aware of right now, later on. we want to try to be measured about how we proceed and that it is a game of chance sometimes
and what we think is a likely outcome. to that end, i am for making people be made to be able to be reminded of the possibility of risk associated with radiofrequency, and just to be reminded of it. i could possibly go along with something like a poster in the place of business. but the idea of having to issue a flier, get fliers printed -- that is not done for free, not to mention the fact that now we have another paper product littering the streets. i think you will all agree with me -- most of these things are going to end up in the garbage bin. they will be read by 1% of the people. not to render negligible the importance of the 1% that my read it, but it is not an effective way to do it. i think i would rather see
something posted, and not the extra step of having to do that. i would rather see more of it go back to the manufacturer. >> i would like to say i really agree with what you are saying. i do support this, in theory, but i would feel more comfortable in terms of small business compliance if it is like a poster that can get from the department of environment. it is there. i could support that as an amendment. president o'brien: i could do that. can we get the motion? commissioner yee riley: i have a clue -- a question.
i support the right to know. people should be educated about the possible risk of having a cell phone. i can support it if we do not penalize this small business owner so it is a out reach program. if you do not get at the flyer, you are breaking the law. i do not agree with that. i can support providing the poster and getting them the fire. do not make the basis to pay a fine. president o'brien: i think the posters would give somebody the notice they need to see. if you make it optional, it is useless. it does not have any teeth. it is a waste of time to put that in there. i think most people would say thanks for telling me about the existence of fire.
no thanks. i think the poster -- i really do believe in trying to cut back on paper and the use of paper. if we are going to have paper, i want to personally moved into a system where i store all my files in documents and try to reduce my own footprint on the environment. i really think a poster would suffice. you walk in. it is prominent enough that it is visible to the eye of the customer walking in the door. i think they will get the message. commissioner yee riley: are you still in favor of the penalty? >> there would be no penalty associated with it. the poster would have to go up, and that would be it. >> how did you in force this and how to mitigate the potential
hazard to your health? president o'brien: how do we force them to put the posters up without a penalty? >> their or pun -- there are penalties for not posting minimum wage. i have a lot of postings and i think that all have penalties. >> here is another posting. i think it is getting ridiculous. you're going to have a whole wall of postings for every little thing. commissioner yee riley: there are laws if you do not post the sun about drinking during pregnancy. -- sign about drinking during pregnancy. >> i can check the ordinance for you. i agree with commissioner o'brien that it would be -- i
would agree that you would have to hand out information with each individual phone if you had a posting that is informing people. there is an opportunity to mitigate their exposure. there is the ear piece, the bluetooth -- >> 1 not suggest a smaller fine, just as a smaller find? i believe the violation is pretty high. but unless you at least have something in theory on the books, no one is good to put it up, just because people are lazy. i would to say if you do not put
it up it is a $50 fine. i think that is sufficient enough to have to put it up. president o'brien: i did not think about the fine part of it when i suggested the poster. i do not like putting fines and fees on businesses. i really do not. it is a tough one. commissioner dooley: what is in the legislation is pretty standard for all fines and fees the city applies on many different pieces of regulations toward businesses. i am not trying to dissuade you from any direction one way or another, but wanted to make it
clear that the amounts of the fines are not different than the other means of finds that are applied to different regulations. i assume this is more about compliance and it is fining. president o'brien: i would like to get a poster up there. i think the public education message to remind people of the dangers of radiofrequency is a good thing, but i cannot just start putting these out there. as much as of would like to see the poster up there. do we have a motion of any sort? >> i would like to make a motion
to support this, to support the posting requirement. to support the posting requirement with the elimination of the flyer. do i have a second? take a row, please. president o'brien: it is okay. [laughter] >> sorry. president o'brien: no problem. >> on that motion. vice president adams: no. commissioner clyde: aye. commissioner dooley: yes. president o'brien: no. commissioner yee riley: no. >> commissioners, that fails 3-
2. president o'brien: ok. next item, please. >> that will be reflected as a no recommendation. is that correct? president o'brien: in its current form, yes. >> i just want to say that i think the department of the environment for working really hard to make something that was actually doable and amenable to both the industry as well as the retailers and the general public. i think they worked very, very hard, and i would like to remind everyone that this is an industry that took the opportunity to show its displeasure with san francisco by pulling a major contention out of san francisco the moment this was -- convention out of san francisco the mom and this was announced. i think that did more damage
than it helped. we will still be working on this. i do want to thank the department. >> you are now on item 8, discussion and possible action to make recommendations to the board of supervisors on file # 0110592, planning code, inner clement, dr. clement, and -- outer clement, and geary. it will allow eating and drinking uses as principally permitted uses if the total street frontage dedicated to such use does not exceed 30% and as conditionally permitted uses if the total street frontage dedicated to such use exceed 30%. remove the prohibition on large fast-food restaurants and prohibit formula retail pet supply stores and formula retell eating and drinking establishments in the
subdistricts. many video stores a principally permited use on the ground floor. permit a how -- height increase of 5 feet to permit tall brown- floor ceilings in the zoning district. make an environmental finding. presentation today by joseph smooke, legislative aide to supervisor eric mar. president o'brien: welcome. >> good evening. joseph smooke, legislative aide to supervisor mar. a have been working on this legislation. my colleague was working on this for a number of months. i am picking it up from her to present to you tonight. , do lovage is here as well in the audience. -- tom radoullovitch is here as
well in the audience. the supervisor presented to you a couple of months ago the first part of this legislation. we do appreciate a letter of support from july 7 as a result of that. we are still working out the balance of the legislation and has implications toward the strong -- the small business community. we have had enormous support and input from clement street and are happy to bring new this legislation -- you this legislation. we've taken under advisement some recommendations for
amendments and modifications that ms. rogers brought to our attention. the first is to more narrowly defined the definition of the formula retail pet supply stores to limiting the prohibition to stores that dedicate a majority of the floor area to cut supplies. currently, the language is broader than that. its prohibition on any formula retail pet supply -- just making sure it is clear that anyone -- for example, there is a form of a retail store that carries pet supplies, but it is a very small part of the business.
there are retail establishments that are here to testify. another modification we are looking at is there is currently legislation in place that allows by right in the inner clement area one more food and drinking establishment. when we drafted the legislation, we had not looked at the inner clement establishment. currently, with the addition with this further establishment, what we are proposing is to allow this additional food and drinking establishment to be put
in place by right, per previous ordinance, and subsequent food and drinking establishments would be established through a conditional use permit process. that is pretty much it in terms of modifications. i want to highlight the increase of the retail floor height in the 50's it zoned parcels. we think that will go a long way toward enhancing the retail frontage. i'm sorry. that is actually just for geary.
i think we have a good package for supporting small businesses in the richmond district. president o'brien: there are a few questions for you. do not go anywhere. commissioner clyde: was the one restaurant -- was that at the request of the neighborhood? did the request this restaurant be allowed to come in? >> this allowed three additional drinking establishments by right. there is still one more that can be allowed by right. that will bring us over the 30% saturation of food and drinking establishments. after that, it would be
conditional use. commissioner yee riley: on the ground floor, it allows addition of 5 feet? with that also be added to the total limit of the building? >> it would be added to the total limit of the building, but only applicable to the ground floor. let us say a developer wanted to make release small floor heights to try to squeeze an additional floor in. we would not be allowed. >>8 40 foot limit would go to 45 and a 50 foot limit would go to 55. >> we got a little confused about this in committee. the 5 ft. can only be added to the ground.